Scientist denies the existence of gravity

I haven't been posting much lately because I've been engaged with other things, namely wasting my time by writing a novel.

But, this was so cool I had to share.

This scientist is denying the existence of gravity. Of course, all he's actually asserting is that gravity isn't a fundamental force in the universe. Currently, science holds there are four fundamental forces that comprise existence: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Of those four, gravity is the only one we have yet to observe at the quantum level. Consequently, without a theory of quantum gravity, it was inevitable that someone would eventually come along and state what scientists have been observing for decades now: There's no observational evidence that gravity is a fundamental force.

I haven't been posting much lately because I've been engaged with other things, namely wasting my time by writing a novel.

But, this was so cool I had to share.

This scientist is denying the existence of gravity. Of course, all he's actually asserting is that gravity isn't a fundamental force in the universe. Currently, science holds there are four fundamental forces that comprise existence: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Of those four, gravity is the only one we have yet to observe at the quantum level. Consequently, without a theory of quantum gravity, it was inevitable that some science would eventually come along and state what scientists have been observing for decades now: There's no observational evidence that gravity is a fundamental force.

At this point, neither the pro-gravity or the anti-gravity (pun intended!) have a leg to stand on since absolutely no proof of either.

I do on the other hand find it an interesting thought that gravity may not be a physical entity, but only a produced effect.

Considering NASA astronauts released salt (or was it sugar) in space and it started clumping together immediately speaks volumes about attractive forces even with small masses in a zero resistance situation.

I find it likely that the energy in mass (think E=MC2) create an attractive presents around the mass and not necessarily a physical field. That presents attracts other mass. Maybe that presents is a physical existence in another dimension.

String theorists are the strangest group of physicists out there. I have been to many of their talks and they all have their own models of the universe. I have seen some who think that string theory is false and should instead be "membrane" theory.

Here is a string theorist's thought process when approaching a problem:

(1) Wow this problem is really interesting and could explain <insert some physical process here>.

(2) I will start with <insert fancy equation>, perform some magic math, and the result is... Oh Crap!!!

(3) This will only work if I add two more dimensions and <somebody else> was wrong.

String theorists are the strangest group of physicists out there. I have been to many of their talks and they all have their own models of the universe. I have seen some who think that string theory is false and should instead be "membrane" theory.

Here is a string theorist's thought process when approaching a problem:

(1) Wow this problem is really interesting and could explain <insert some physical process here>.

(2) I will start with <insert fancy equation>, perform some magic math, and the result is... Oh Crap!!!

(3) This will only work if I add two more dimensions and <somebody else> was wrong.

It was so funny, one of the M-theory guys giving a talk here at Tech was showing us some of the figures he calculated and there was this one that looked just like a rolled up condom. Those of us sitting in the back got a good laugh while his laser pointer dot was tracing all around it.

String theorists are the strangest group of physicists out there. I have been to many of their talks and they all have their own models of the universe. I have seen some who think that string theory is false and should instead be "membrane" theory.

Here is a string theorist's thought process when approaching a problem:

(1) Wow this problem is really interesting and could explain <insert some physical process here>.

(2) I will start with <insert fancy equation>, perform some magic math, and the result is... Oh Crap!!!

(3) This will only work if I add two more dimensions and <somebody else> was wrong.

According to an article I read, there's a fairly heated debate within the scientific community over the extent to which String theory can even be considered scientific because it struggles to fulfill scientific requirements concerning falsification.

The theory as a whole can only be falsified by disproving quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are too broad and numerous to be useful.

I can take it a little bit farther than that. Black holes have lots of gravity. They have so much that not even light can escape it. Therefore the gravity in a black hole is faster than the speed of light.

According to an article I read, there's a fairly heated debate within the scientific community over the extent to which String theory can even be considered scientific because it struggles to fulfill scientific requirements concerning falsification.

The theory as a whole can only be falsified by disproving quantum mechanics, and the predictions it makes are too broad and numerous to be useful.

I could see that. In many of the field theories, string/M theories, and other high energy fields, there are many long complicated equations of state which have no analytical solution and thus must be approximated. When applying different approximations you can end up with a large number of adjustable parameters which represent something physical.

This is the same procedure behind all computer modelling, you create a model with a number of parameters that you put into a program. Problems arise in these high level theories because the parameters are often put in to make the solution "just work".

Plus, most of the solutions and results of these theories are not observable.

I can take it a little bit farther than that. Black holes have lots of gravity. They have so much that not even light can escape it. Therefore the gravity in a black hole is faster than the speed of light.

This is true for the most part. There is some radiation in the form of Hawking Radiation, which is one proposed (and commonly accepted) theory as to why Black Holes can evaporate.

Actually, I know the answer. I'm just to stuck up and snobby to share it.

Thats OK. We'll just start treating you as an outcast until you go into isolation, become a drunk and die an early death, sick, miserable and lonely. Then we'll take your scientific journals and publish them on a comedy website. :laugh2:

Thats OK. We'll just start treating you as an outcast until you go into isolation, become a drunk and die an early death, sick, miserable and lonely. Then we'll take your scientific journals and publish them on a comedy website. :laugh2:

Oh man, you mean I'm going to have an exact repeat of my last past life? :bang2: